Objective: Towards developing an instrument to measure knee and hip osteoarthritis (KHOA) flare, the Out-come Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Flares in OA Working Group first sought to identify... Show moreObjective: Towards developing an instrument to measure knee and hip osteoarthritis (KHOA) flare, the Out-come Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Flares in OA Working Group first sought to identify and define relevant domains of flare in KHOA.Methods: Guided by OMERACT Filter 2.1, candidate domains were identified from data generated in inter-views, in English or French, with persons with KHOA and health professionals (HPs) who treat OA. The first and second rounds of an online Delphi process with patients and HPs, including researchers, selected rele-vant domains. The third round provided agreement on the selected domains and their definitions. At the vir-tual OMERACT 2020 workshop, the proposed domains and their definitions were discussed in facilitated breakout groups with patients and HPs. Participants then voted, with consensus set at >= 70%.Results: Qualitative interviews characterizing OA flare were completed with 29 persons with KHOA and 16 HPs. Content was analyzed and grouped into nine clusters. These candidate domains were included in two Delphi rounds, completed by 91 patients and 165 HPs then 50 patients and 116 HPs, per round, respectively. This resulted in selecting five relevant domains. A final Delphi round, completed by 38 patients and 89 HPs, provided agreement on these domains and their definitions. The OMERACT virtual vote included 27 patients and 106 HPs. The domains and their definitions were endorsed with >= 98% agreement. Domains include: Pain, Swelling, Stiffness, Psychological aspects, and Impact of symptoms, all defined "during flare".Conclusion: Using OMERACT methodology, we have developed five domains of KHOA flare that were highly endorsed by patients and HPs. (c) 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Show less
Toupin-April, K.; Decary, S.; Wit, M. de; Meara, A.; Barton, J.L.; Fraenkel, L.; ... ; Tugwell, P. 2021
Objective: To gain consensus on the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) core domain set for rheumatology trials of shared decision making (SDM) interventions.Methods: The process followed... Show moreObjective: To gain consensus on the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) core domain set for rheumatology trials of shared decision making (SDM) interventions.Methods: The process followed the OMERACT Filter 2.1 methodology, and used consensus-building methods, with patients involved since the inception. After developing the draft core domain set in previous research, we conducted five steps: (i) improving the draft core domain set; (ii) developing and disseminating whiteboard videos to promote its understanding; (iii) conducting an electronic survey to gather feedback on the draft core domain set; (iv) finalizing the core domain set and developing summaries, a plenary session video and discussion boards to promote its understanding; and (v) conducting virtual workshops with voting to endorse the core domain set.Results: A total of 167 participants from 28 countries answered the survey (62% were patients/caregivers). Most participants rated domains as relevant (81%-95%) and clear (82%-93%). A total of 149 participants (n = 48 patients/caregivers, 101 clinicians/researchers) participated in virtual workshops and voted on the proposed core domain set which received endorsement by 95%. Endorsed domains are: 1-Knowledge of options, their potential benefits and harms; 2-Chosen option aligned with each patient's values and preferences; 3-Confidence in the chosen option; 4-Satisfaction with the decision-making process; 5-Adherence to the chosen option and 6-Potential negative consequences of the SDM intervention.Conclusion: We achieved consensus among an international group of stakeholders on the OMERACT core domain set for rheumatology trials of SDM interventions. Future research will develop the Core Outcome Measurement Set.Clinical significance: Prior to this study, there had been no consensus on the OMERACT core domain set for SDM interventions. The current study shows that the OMERACT core domain set achieved a high level of endorsement by key stakeholders, including patients/caregivers, clinicians and researchers.(c) 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Show less
Nielsen, S.M.; Tugwell, P.; Wit, M.P.T. de; Boers, M.; Beaton, D.E.; Woodworth, T.G.; ... ; Contextual Factors Working Grp 2019
Objective: To assess the pain and functional disability levels corresponding to an indication for total joint replacement (TJR) in hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA). Methods: Design: International... Show moreObjective: To assess the pain and functional disability levels corresponding to an indication for total joint replacement (TJR) in hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA). Methods: Design: International cross-sectional study in 10 countries. Patients: Consecutive outpatients with definite hip or knee OA attending an orthopaedic outpatient clinic. Gold standard measure for recommendation for TJR: Surgeon's decision that TJR is justified. Outcome measures: Pain (ICOAP: intermittent and constant osteoarthritis pain, 0-100) and functional impairment (HOOS-PS/KOOS-PS: Hip/Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Physical function Short-form, 0-100). Analyses: Comparison of patients with vs without surgeons' indication for TJR. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve analyses and logistic regression were applied to determine cut points of pain and disability defining recommendation for TJR. Results: In all, 1909 patients were included (1130 knee/779 hip OA). Mean age was 66.4 [standard deviation (SD) 10.9] years, 58.1% were women; 628/1130 (55.6%) knee OA and 574/779 (73.7%) hip OA patients were recommended for TJR. Although patients recommended for TJR (yes vs no) had worse symptom levels [pain, 55.5 (95% confidence interval 54.2, 56.8) vs. 44.9 (43.2, 46.6), and functional impairment, 59.8 (58.7, 60.9) vs. 50.9 (49.3, 52.4), respectively, both P < 0.0001]. there was substantial overlap in symptom levels between groups, even when adjusting for radiographic joint status. Thus, it was not possible to determine cut points for pain and function defining 'requirement for TJR'. Conclusion: Although symptom levels were higher in patients recommended for TJR, pain and functional disability alone did not discriminate between those who were and were not considered to need TJR by the orthopaedic surgeon. (C) 2010 Osteoarthritis Research Society International. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Show less
